Fix Fatamids

[Bigheeed]

Maybe if they limited the first Jihad until 20 years after the Pope calls the 1st crusade it may reflect better its use as a response to Christian aggression, also having not played as Muslim i can't be sure if this is correct already but if you limited their invasions to only states larger than them it would really only leave the HRE and maybe ERE as being bigger and possible targets.
At least that should spare Italy and Spain for anything but Holy war.

 

[MartinSWE]

My game as Castile hasnt even made it to 1095 yet and the Fatimids already invaded and captured Greece (Killing the Byzantines) and control ALL of France,but fortunately they have ignored me.

i don´t understand how you can get these results. Sure I do sometimes see the Fatamids or even more frequently the Seljuks (or their successors) go on a killing spree but full control of France have never happened in my games. Also early on Muslims have tech advantage that makes them feel 'unbeatable' but I tend to send my spymaster to the muslim neighbourhood and have them teach me.

 

[MartinSWE]

Maybe if they limited the first Jihad until 20 years after the Pope calls the 1st crusade it may reflect better its use as a response to Christian aggression, also having not played as Muslim i can't be sure if this is correct already but if you limited their invasions to only states larger than them it would really only leave the HRE and maybe ERE as being bigger and possible targets.
At least that should spare Italy and Spain for anything but Holy war.

Jihads should be limited to being 'defensive holy wars' since that was what they where ... and still are. I would say that any Christian controlling an area with a Muslim population should be a possible target of a Jihad, with added limitations to allow expansion in areas such as Spain. Having Jihads basically as 'Muslim Crusades' is both ahistorical, a bit boring and it makes them to powerful. Also areas considered 'holy' to muslims (Jerusalem, Medina and so on) should always be a prioritized target of Jihads if they are in the hands of Infidels.

 

[Voy]

Jihads should be limited to being 'defensive holy wars' since that was what they where ... and still are. I would say that any Christian controlling an area with a Muslim population should be a possible target of a Jihad, with added limitations to allow expansion in areas such as Spain. Having Jihads basically as 'Muslim Crusades' is both ahistorical, a bit boring and it makes them to powerful. Also areas considered 'holy' to muslims (Jerusalem, Medina and so on) should always be a prioritized target of Jihads if they are in the hands of Infidels.

Agreed. Muslims only called Jihads as counter attack to reclaim, not forming empires. + I think it would be better if the holy wars costed more piety for Muslims and Christians alike. Right now they're far too common.

 

[Booo]

Just reduce the frequency of Jihads (half to that of Crusades since there are two caliphs) and reduce the Invasion CB to target duchies, not Kingdoms. Or remove it altogether and have them go with Holy War.

Don't forget that the only effect of breaking a truce is a loss in relation with the members of the opposite faction's faith. Why would an Islamic ruler care much about the opinion of others? Okay, you might need to reform your armies after every won war, but the prudent Sultan would still declare quick successive wars if the enemy is broken. (But I guess the AI might not do this?)

 

[Lord Finnish]

Don't forget that the only effect of breaking a truce is a loss in relation with the members of the opposite faction's faith. Why would an Islamic ruler care much about the opinion of others? Okay, you might need to reform your armies after every won war, but the prudent Sultan would still declare quick successive wars if the enemy is broken. (But I guess the AI might not do this?)

You have a point, but as far as I know AI never breaks truces, which leaves such gamey tactics for player.

And of course, relation hits rarely matter even in your own religion group as long as you don't excommunicated.

 

[rashtrakut]

The Seljiks and the Fatimids should be at each others throats. Alp Arslan offered the Byyzzies favorable terms after Manzikerr because he wanted to attack the heretical shiite Fatimids

 

[Sleight of Hand]

The Seljiks and the Fatimids should be at each others throats. Alp Arslan offered the Byyzzies favorable terms after Manzikerr because he wanted to attack the heretical shiite Fatimids

Indeed.

There appears to be very little hostility between Sunnis and Shi'as in CK II, and it's easy to persuade courtiers to convert between the two faiths, which should be nigh-on impossible I'd have thought.

 

[Frozen_Predator]

Indeed.

There appears to be very little hostility between Sunnis and Shi'as in CK II, and it's easy to persuade courtiers to convert between the two faiths, which should be nigh-on impossible I'd have thought.

In my games the Fatimids usually swallow the Seljuks, the Fatimid Seljuk alliance I had to face in my current game was a new experience for me

 

[Rozmarzony]

And they even inherit them.

 

[Immortal Impi]

They're in a goddamn four way civil war I don't understand why Paradox made them perfectly stable

 

[JonStryker]

Indeed.

There appears to be very little hostility between Sunnis and Shi'as in CK II, and it's easy to persuade courtiers to convert between the two faiths, which should be nigh-on impossible I'd have thought.

It's also easy to convert courtiers who have memorized the whole Quran from Islam to Christianity. Insanity xD



My suggestions for nerfing the Fatimids:

Firstly reduce the number of boats, their speed, make them get lost, add sea attrition, etc. 20000 fatimits on boat wouldn't have reached Galicia alive.
To be frank in this timeframe it was extremely difficult to for instance get by ship from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic (because of the massive inflow of water). Same applies to the Black Sea. There are tricks to navigate these areas (specifically sea anchors). But 1) those weren't well known and 2) that wouldn't be an option for 200 ships filled with troops.
If the "real" Fatimids would've wanted to invade northern Spain they most likely would have walked there. Shipping a huge army around Hispania certainly wasn't possible.

Secondly I'd give defensive nations a huge bonus: Make them be able to raise 100% levies from their vassals, regardless of how much the vassals like them. These additional troops should only be available while in a defensive war and only within the defender's own borders.

 

[unmerged(527492)]

I wonder if the Fatimids have been made overly stable so that the first crusade can target one faction and gain all of Jerusalem in one go.

 

[HabemusZlatan]

More importantly: Why do they want to conquer Ethiopia so much?

 

[BBBD316]

I think the issue grows that smaller nations Apulia, Croatia, etc really do struggle to stay around for an extended period of time with the Bzy/Muslim CB's.

I really would have thought there would be more fighting between muslims, isn't that what really allowed the crusades to work, that the muslims fought amongst themselves so much it took a great leader to unite them against the infidel?

 

[NezzeOne]

More importantly: Why do they want to conquer Ethiopia so much?

They really need to change the way Ethiopia handles Muslims. Either by making it so that Muslims cannot Holy War against Abyssinia and Nubia, or by giving the Ethiopians special events that give them a bunch of troops to help stave off the Fatimid hordes.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

They really need to change the way Ethiopia handles Muslims. Either by making it so that Muslims cannot Holy War against Abyssinia and Nubia, or by giving the Ethiopians special events that give them a bunch of troops to help stave off the Fatimid hordes.

The historical situation isn't modelled whatsoever in CK II, which is why the East African states are effectively unplayable, especially when you take into account just how absurdly/ahistorically overpowered and expansionist the Fatimids are. The Fatimids were a Shi'a dynasty ruling over a predominantly Christian and Sunni populace and surrounded by Sunni states. Pretty much everyone around them hated them -- with the notable exception of the Nubians, who traded gold and slaves (making up a sizeable chunk of the Fatimid army) in exchange for a sort of mutual defensive alliance (the Baqt). In some gameplay elements it can be ignored (for example, it wasn't an offensive alliance and therefore you shouldn't be able to play as Nubia and drag the Fatimids into any wars you start) but it was crucial in the sense that the Fatimids had friendly relations with the rulers of Nubia and swore to protect them from external threats.

So yeah, the Fatimids should not be declaring any sort of wars against the Nubians on the basis that they had a formal alliance and were one another's only friends.

Combine that with the current AI trend of spamming offensive, expansionist Jihads and you basically have an absurd, broken Middle East setup/mentality.

 

[ZechsMerquise73]

The historical situation isn't modelled whatsoever in CK II, which is why the East African states are effectively unplayable, especially when you take into account just how absurdly/ahistorically overpowered and expansionist the Fatimids are. The Fatimids were a Shi'a dynasty ruling over a predominantly Christian and Sunni populace and surrounded by Sunni states. Pretty much everyone around them hated them -- with the notable exception of the Nubians, who traded gold and slaves (making up a sizeable chunk of the Fatimid army) in exchange for a sort of mutual defensive alliance (the Baqt). In some gameplay elements it can be ignored (for example, it wasn't an offensive alliance and therefore you shouldn't be able to play as Nubia and drag the Fatimids into any wars you start) but it was crucial in the sense that the Fatimids had friendly relations with the rulers of Nubia and swore to protect them from external threats.

So yeah, the Fatimids should not be declaring any sort of wars against the Nubians on the basis that they had a formal alliance and were one another's only friends.

Combine that with the current AI trend of spamming offensive, expansionist Jihads and you basically have an absurd, broken Middle East setup/mentality.

Yes, these changes need to be made. It annoys me how unplayable the Nubians are, for one.

A big problem I see is that Fatimid troops are pretty easy to kill, but that works out to their benefit. After a few months they're back while you or the AI are dwnindled in half your forces from the last battle. What you should do after winning a major battle against them is disband your troops and wait for them to regain strength. Raise when you're at max. This is probably how they steamroll the Byzantians so easily.

But in the last 4 games I've played since 1.7, the Fatamids actually loose most wars except for Armenia. Otherwise they tagteam jihads with the Sunnis, which makes no sense at all.

 

[codeGnave]

jihad target values should probably be lowered in anatolia and greece. anatolia should never be captured before armenia, thats ridiculous. maybe make the capture of mecca an important goal of both factions of islam? Piety requirement to call a jihad? idk just throwing out ideas

 

[AndreasPhokas]

Fatimids are definately insane....i like to start a touch later so they are weaker, i always see the seljuks implode(although at times it takes a bit) but the fatimids never do ever. As the byzantines i usually start later(alexiad,1205,1261 for instance) so its a harder challenge but the AI usually expands in europe and loses ground in asia minor.

Ive only had the displeasure of them attacking me once and it was when i was playing as the duchyof barcelona. I had just united aragon when the dreaded shia jihad hit. Luckily France and the HRE backed me up because i placed alliances(france saved my rear a couple times earlier in the game) but it was still a crazy war(side note i was the last christian kingdom in iberia, everyone else was gone(1066 start). Tens of thousands of levies all over the place, we wound up winning but it was stupid regardless.